Post your response here. At the start of your response, please post your name, in bold lettering. At the end, please insert a line below by clicking the button to the left of the LINK button, which has a blue line going through text.
Gabri Girardi The case Fernandez vs. California is very interesting. This case touches on our Fourth Amendment rights deeply. Walter Fernandez was said to be involved in a gang related robbery that took place in California. On October 12th of 2009 Angeles police were tipped off that Fernandez,a suspected member of the gang known as the drifters, (Clark2013), had assaulted another man and fled to his apartment. When the officers arrived to the apartment they heard screams and fighting going on. Officers knocked and Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez’s girlfriend answered, she was bruised and bloody. Police asked to search the apartment and Fernandez stepped forward and refused the search. The police arrested Fernandez for the gang assault. Once Fernandez was arrested one officer returned and told Rojas that he had been arrested. They then again asked once more to search the apartment. Rojas said yes and signed an affidavit (Clark2013). The police found a sawed off shotgun, gang clothes, ammunition and a knife. They used this evidence to present that Fernandez was guilty of the assault. Fernandez argued that the evidence was seized illegally. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal,2nd District disagreed with Fernandez and allowed the obtained evidence. The California Supreme Court then denied Fernandez’s appeal and the U.S Supreme Court agreed to hear it and their verdict has not yet been decided. This search was legal and any of the evidence found in Fernandez’s apartment should be able to be used against him. His girlfriend Roxanne lived at the apartment too,she was on the lease therefore she has every right to consent to the police for them to search her home. As the Editorial Board from the New York Times says,the state contends that obtaining consent is”simpler, faster and less burdensome” than getting a warrant. Roxanne did just that,gave them full consent to search her home so no warrant was needed. The police also had probable cause to search the apartment. They had been informed of the assault and had information that Fernandez had fled back to his apartment. Both the trial court and the California Court of Appeals found the evidence to be legally obtained. They are right, but Fernandez’s attorney argued that his right to refuse the search has to be “valid until it’s impossible to enforce” (Fisher2013). This was not an illegal search. The search would have been illegal if the Roxanne would have told the police no they could not search the home and then they continued to proceed in the search. I feel that Fernandez should get any punishment that they give him using the evidence they found in his house. I would most certainly agree with the lower courts for this case. Everything was conducted legally.
Jared Cepollina
The decision made in the lower courts is correct in this case. The defendant Fernandez was charged with gang related-violence and assault. There was evidence that was used against him that was found in his apartment. He believed that it should not have been allowed to be used because he did not give consent for the police to enter his apartment. However, when the police went back to the apartment, the women he lived with, did give consent to enter the apartment. The lower courts decided that this was allowed because Fernandez was not there to give consent, so the person who was there was allowed to (The Editorial Board, 2013). This decision would agree with many of the decisions that have been made in the recent past about questionably illegal evidence retrieval, and now is not the time to stop that trend. The issue of why this has been brought up so many times in the past is because of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects the rights of the accused, but they were not infringed upon in this case. Consent was given to enter the apartment by someone who was in the apartment at the time, and there was enough probable cause to want to search the apartment. They searched the apartment for drugs using a certified dog, but the dog found illegal drugs that it was not supposed to. However, the Supreme Court allowed those drugs as evidence considering the fact that they were still illegal (Lemeiux, 2013). The only reason Fernandez was out of his home in the first place was because he was arrested from the probable cause regarding his beaten girlfriend. When she came to the door to answer the police with him, it was obvious that she was beaten and that it was very recent. Fernandez was arrested for that reason (Clark, 2013). Because he was out of his home, the police decided to try again to search the apartment. When they got there, the girlfriend gave consent for the apartment to be searched. At that moment, consent was given. The police went to the apartment and did not break in; instead they asked to come in, and that request was granted. The implications this may have on the fourth amendment are slightly significant, but they are for the right reasons. In the future, it will be easier for the police to do their jobs in order to assure the safety of society. The rights of the accused are not being unfairly taken away by this case, but the procedure is being changed to make life easier on police officers. While that is not a big deal for the accused, it is a big deal for the victims, and that is why the precedent of this case is goin gto have good implications. The precedent to this case was Mapp v. Ohio. In that case, the Supreme Court sided with Mapp, saying that the evidence that was used on trial was illegally obtained, so it could not be used in a court of law. However, there is one big difference between that case and this one: the evidence was not gained illegally in the Fernandez case. Consent to search the apartment was given; the police did not just break in when the person living there said no. That one cardinal difference changes the whole case, and that is why the decision made in the lower courts is correct, and it should not be overturned. Amanda Afflebach Fernandez’s argument is invalid. Rojas, Fernandez’s girlfriend, had a right to say that the officials could look in their apartment without a warrant. At the time that Rojas gave permission, Fernandez was not present. When Fernandez stepped forward after hearing the police, he said that he did not want the officials to be in their apartment without a warrant. Police arrested Fernandez, and rightfully so, and Roxanne Rojas signed an affidavit saying that the police could search the house (Clark, 2013). Two of the higher end officials also agreed that it was legal for the police to search the apartment (Lemieux, 2013). When the officials searched the apartment, they found a shotgun, ammunition, and a knife that were allegedly used in the robbery (The Editorial Board, 2013). Not only was there the reason of the gang-related violence case for the officials to be there, but also when Fernandez’s girlfriend answered the door with her infant, the officials saw something that they had not bargained for. When Rojas opened the door to the police, the police saw something appalling. Rojas had bruises and was bleeding on various parts of her body. The police didn’t need a warrant to see that much. Now, a whole new case had to be opened up on domestic violence (The Editorial Board, 2013). However, this doesn’t excuse Fernandez from his other wrong doings. This is similar to the Mapp v. Ohio case. The police had originally gone to her house to find the suspect of the bombing in the house down the street, but instead they found obscene books in her house. They did not have a warrant to be in her house, either. The police had full rights to go into the Fernandez/Rojas apartment without a warrant because Rojas, a resident of the apartment, allowed them to.
Megan Bigelow
There are many topics that are argued in the Supreme Court daily. Each day there are many different debates on who is right and who is wrong (“A Mixed”). One topic being argued is whether the police should be allowed to enter a home if one owner says no, and the other says yes. The police should not require a search warrant to enter someones house and go through their belongings. If one of the owners allows them into their home, then that should be good enough. If two people are sharing a home and both pay for the home, there is nothing wrong with the police going in. The two homeowners/renters are aware of the custody over it/ In the Fernandez v. California case, the police went to Fernandez’s house to search the proximity and arrest him (“The Pew”). When he said they could not enter his home, they arrested him and went back an hour later. The girlfriend permitted them access and the police searched the home.
The Fernandez v. California case also deals with whether the police can enter the home of an arrested convict (“The Opinion”). As long as the police know that the suspect is guilty, then they may search the house. If the suspect is indeed, just a suspect, they must provide a search warrant to enter the home. Depending on the crime, the police must have 50%, 95%, or 100% to “know” the suspect is guilty. Police must follow the fourth amendment, but if they are positive that the suspect is guilty, they do not need a search warrant for the arrested convict’s home. If they are wrong, they will most likely be sued and possible fired. This prevents the police from abusing their authority.
Kymberly Benton-O'Marrah
The courts original findings in the Fernandez case should be upheld by the Supreme Courts decision. When one lives in an apartment with somebody else, than they no longer has the luxury of a complete sense of privacy and security. If a police officer asks a roommate or any other type of tenant to search the home or apartment, they should be able to give the consent. In this case, Fernandez’s girlfriend had a right and a responsibility to protect herself and her son, (Clark, 2013) in order to enforce these rights he invited the police inside to search the premises.
In the end, it comes down to the idea that if the police have enough probable cause to make an arrest, than they have enough to justify searching the property. Fernandez should have recognized that he no longer had a complete sense of privacy and therefore should have recognized that his girlfriend had the right and authority to invite anybody into their home, including police officers. This consent gave the police permission to search the home (Editorial Board, 2013). It is likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower-court decisions based on the court make-up of several civil conservative judges (Lemieux, 2013).
Katie Hackos
In the Fernandez Vs. California case, there is controversy about whether or not the evidence found was legal or illegal. What happened was that the police where looking for a man involves in a gang related incident, Walter Fernandez. When the police came to his house, Fernandez denied a search but then as arrested for the assault in the gang incident. Fernandez's girlfriend agreed to the search when the police came by later. He was then charged guilty in his trial with the evidence that was found in the search. Fernandez claimed that the evidence could not be used because the search was he didn't give his consent.
The question is, are police allowed to enter a search when one roommate says yes and another says no? Yes, it is allowed. Especially in this case, because of the commotion going on in the house when the police arrived there was enough suspicion from the screaming to already enter the building. Fernandez's girlfriend was a resident of that building. She had all the right to let the police into the building. All the wrong doings that Fernandez did wasn't going to be hidden forever so she just saved the process time. This case reminds us of Mapp vs. Ohio because it is claimed that the police had taken away the fourth amendment rights from the people charged. In the Fernandez case, the police did not break into the apartment nor tried to take away rights. The police simply asked to come in and a rightful owner agreed to let them in. In the Map vs Ohio case the police barged in did not find what they where looking for but found another illegal factor in the house. They used the illegal evidence to charge Mapp. Clearly, this was not the case. Lately, more and more people are questioning whether or not their rights are being violated but with time and as technology changes there will be changes to the fourth amendment. Kacey Werner The police wanted into an apartment to search for the man (Walter Fernandez) and the evidence of a gang related incident. When the police got there to search, Fernandez’s girlfriend opened the door but he denied the search. The police arrested him for the gang assault and came back later (with a warrant) to search the apartment and the girlfriend let them inside. As stated in the Pew Article, during the search they found a sawed-off shotgun, gang-affiliated clothes, ammunition and a knife. The evidence they found proved he was guilty but they didn’t have a warrant to search for it. He argued that the evidence was seized illegally.__ The fourth amendment has and will continue to give a lot of leeway to criminal’s but sometimes, they’re going to get caught and they aren’t going to be able to do anything about it. If you do the crime, you’re going to do the time. In the New York Times article, __The state court rejected his appeal, finding that the police’s warrantless entry was legal because he was no longer there to object. Once he was gone, the state claimed that his girlfriend’s consent rendered the search lawful.__They had gotten permission to go into his house from his girlfriend and he is guilty of the crime so he shouldn’t have a say in the case. He is just trying to get out of trouble but his complaint is irrelevant. In the Mapp v. Ohio case, there was actual reasoning the evidence shouldn’t have been used, there was no warrant, there wasn’t permission from anyone to come inside and the police forced themselves in. In the Prospect article, with the dogs searching for drugs in the car, but the drugs found weren’t the drugs the dogs were supposed to find. __For such searches to be reasonable requires that dogs actually have a reliable record of distinguishing between automobiles that contain drugs and those that do not—if the sniffing produces essentially random results, they cannot be used as probable cause for a search.__
Stephan Day
I uphold the lower courts findings. As a member of the Supreme Court, I feel as though it is in the best interest of the judicial system that we make a clear standing as to why the search was legal. According to the arresting officers, upon arrival to the defendant’s home they heard screaming and fighting from the front door. At this point the officers had enough reason to make an arrest just for a domestic dispute. After police knocked on the door it was clear as day that the defendant’s girlfriend, Miss Rojas had clearly been beaten as she appeared bruised and bloodied. Yes Mr. Fernandez did deny the police to search his home but the arrest had already been made. Therefore when the police returned after detaining Mr. Fernandez, they had every right to ask his girlfriend Miss Rojas for permission to search the apartment as it was clear they had been living together and she was a tenant of the home. According to one Justice the search was illegal because there was enough probable cause to retrieve a warrant(Maggie Clark, 2013). But I say there wasn’t probable cause considering the officers had only received a tip from an unknown source that may or may not be reliable. I would say the officers may have jumped the gun by going to the house based on a tip but had they not have done that they would have never heard of the domestic dispute unless it was reported by the victim or neighbors, which by then the victim could had fled the scene. I also uphold the officers going back to ask Miss Rojas to search the apartment after Mr. Fernandez had already denied the search because through their search they found more than enough evidence to suggest Mr. Fernandez’s gang affiliations. The defendant was in possession of an illegal firearm as well as owned gang related clothing. In terms of illegal searches I feel that the arresting officers did nothing illegal or illegally obtained evidence due to the fact that the defendant’s girlfriend gave permission to a property search. Her signature on the affidavit was enough for police to go through with the search and find key evidence against the defendant.
Daniel Gonzalez
When you look into this case for the first time, the question you might reach at the end is “Was this legal?” Honestly, from the details shown about what happened between law enforcement officials and Walter Hernandez, it can be seen that the court decision made was in fact the right one; sentencing Hernandez to fourteen years in jail for gang-related issues and upholding the original findings in the case. (The Editorial Board, 2013) This decision was correct for a number of good reasons. The first is that the LA police department did receive note that a suspected gang member named Walter Hernandez had assaulted another man, then returned back to his apartment. The police when arriving at the apartment heard screaming and fighting through the door. (Clark, 2013) This gave them all the reason to actually enter the property without consent, having prior suspicion anyways on the suspect. The second reason to why it was best to sentence Hernandez to fourteen years in jail is because his girlfriend did give consent for the police to search the apartment. This happened after the suspect was arrested, later coming back to ask permission. (The Editorial Board, 2013) So the situation does present itself legal, as one of the people that lives with Hernandez did give consent to the police so they could search the residence thoroughly, with prior suspicions. In the end, most people should believe in the decision made, as no one does want to see a criminal walk away freely just because that criminal(Hernandez) complained that without him there, the police had no right to search the apartment. Just look at the Supreme Court, they still ruled against the Fourth Amendment, even though the drug dogs in the case were not trained for the specific drugs found, nonetheless the person was guilty of possession of illegal drugs. (Lemieux, 2013) The Fourth Amendment does allow you privacy, but also states that searches can be done without a warrant, with consent from someone who resides on the property. (Mapp v. Ohio) This man still assaulted someone, robbed things, and had ties with gangs. This is why the decision made on Walter Hernandez was legal, and the court was indeed correct. Dilina Patel
The evidence presented in the lower courts decision is correct. Walter Fernandez was found guilty of gang-related violence and assault. Fernandez argued that the evidence that was presented in court should be deemed inadmissible because it was taken illegally from his apartment. The lower courts decision set a precedent on whether the tenant of an apartment can give consent to allow police in to search the home. The lower court stated that the search was legal due to the fact that Fernandez was not there to consent anymore (The Editorial Board, 2013). This case focuses on the Fourth Amendment and whether the search done by the police in this case violates the rights of the accuse.Though the case will be going to the Supreme Court, the decision will most likely be parallel with the lower courts. In the past year the Supreme Court has agreed with an “illegal” drug search. The police went into the search with a drug-search dog and the intent to find a certain drug. Instead the dog sniffed out a different drug. The Supreme court sided with the police, stating that the drugs found were still illegal and should still be considered evidence (Lemieux, 2013). The police in the Fernandez case went with the intent to charge Fernandez with assault but instead found a battered woman, changing the case entirely. Though Fernandez was arrested, his girlfriend allowed the local police into the apartment to search for evidence to convict Fernandez with assault. Fernandez claimed the evidence does not count due to the fact that he himself did not give consent to the police. Fernandez was arrested after the police knocked on the door and Fernandez’s girlfriend opened the door, bloodied and holding a baby. In order to protect the lives of the woman and her child, Fernandez was taken away(Clark, 2013). The police, in need of evidence to convict Fernandez needed to get into the apartment. They were correct in asking the consent of the girlfriend. The girlfriend allowed the police into the home to look for evidence. The police did find enough to convict Fernandez. The police force did nothing wrong and did not violate the Fourth Amendment in that they did ask for consent before entering the home. In the precedent case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme sided with Mapp, saying that the evidence collected was inadmissible because the items were taken without consent. In the Fernandez case, the police did not break into his home and just take the items. The difference between the Mapp and Fernandez case is that the police forced their way into Mapp’s home. The police received consent for entering into Fernandez’s home and therefore were not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Pedro Tavarez
In the case about Walter Fernandez, I myself agree with the lower courts the search was legal. Why? because when the police knocked on the door, they saw a woman holding an infant answered. She had a fresh wound on her face and blood on her hand and shirt. When the police saw the suspect behind her(Walter Fernandez), they asked him to step outside. He said, “You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights.” The police arrested Fernandez, on charges of domestic violence, and he was taken to the police station. An hour later, the police returned to the home and asked the woman, Mr. Fernandez’s girlfriend, if they could enter. She consented, and the subsequent search turned up a shotgun, ammunition and a knife allegedly used in the robbery. Also, If the police have probable cause to make an arrest, they will almost surely have the basis for a warrant as well. Warrants can be issued in a matter of minutes, and, in the meantime, the police can secure the home if they are concerned that evidence may be destroyed. Furthermore, what if the police didn’t arrest Fernandez that women could of possibly died. Lastly, in the supreme court they mentioned “special protection as the center of the private lives of our people.” The justices should reaffirm that principle and require police who wish to search a home to get a warrant, even if the only person standing in their way is in a holding cell.
Romello Barbour
The option of having at least one tenant giving consent seems like the good choice to go to. There should be no need for excessive time when the police feel the need to search an area to protect others lives. One tenant is already giving consent and if the other does not then there might be a reason for that, such as hiding something that could get them in trouble with the law. There is already a reason that the police would like to search the structure anyways so it isn’t like the police just want to go around and going through everyone’s things. Based upon all the decisions that were made the overall decision should remain the same.
If this court case were changed then all of the other cases related would have to be changed as well. A lot of cases would have to be altered and punishments would be different. There is no reason for the search that was done by the police to change the outcome of the case. A co-tenant of the home gave consent for the police to do a legal search on the home. What the police found was evidence that should have the man arrested. A sawed off shotgun and gang affiliated clothing with his spouse bruised and bloody should at least get Walter Fernendez questioned, and the fact that he denied the police access to his home made things seem even more suspicious. Walter Fernendez's argument of his home being illegally searched is invalid, all the evidence found is legal to be used in court to get him incarcerated.
Fernandez v. California DECISION: LEGAL SEARCH
Post your response here. At the start of your response, please post your name, in bold lettering. At the end, please insert a line below by clicking the button to the left of the LINK button, which has a blue line going through text.Gabri Girardi
The case Fernandez vs. California is very interesting. This case touches on our Fourth Amendment rights deeply. Walter Fernandez was said to be involved in a gang related robbery that took place in California. On October 12th of 2009 Angeles police were tipped off that Fernandez,a suspected member of the gang known as the drifters, (Clark2013), had assaulted another man and fled to his apartment. When the officers arrived to the apartment they heard screams and fighting going on. Officers knocked and Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez’s girlfriend answered, she was bruised and bloody. Police asked to search the apartment and Fernandez stepped forward and refused the search. The police arrested Fernandez for the gang assault. Once Fernandez was arrested one officer returned and told Rojas that he had been arrested. They then again asked once more to search the apartment. Rojas said yes and signed an affidavit (Clark2013). The police found a sawed off shotgun, gang clothes, ammunition and a knife. They used this evidence to present that Fernandez was guilty of the assault. Fernandez argued that the evidence was seized illegally. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal,2nd District disagreed with Fernandez and allowed the obtained evidence. The California Supreme Court then denied Fernandez’s appeal and the U.S Supreme Court agreed to hear it and their verdict has not yet been decided.
This search was legal and any of the evidence found in Fernandez’s apartment should be able to be used against him. His girlfriend Roxanne lived at the apartment too,she was on the lease therefore she has every right to consent to the police for them to search her home. As the Editorial Board from the New York Times says,the state contends that obtaining consent is”simpler, faster and less burdensome” than getting a warrant. Roxanne did just that,gave them full consent to search her home so no warrant was needed. The police also had probable cause to search the apartment. They had been informed of the assault and had information that Fernandez had fled back to his apartment. Both the trial court and the California Court of Appeals found the evidence to be legally obtained. They are right, but Fernandez’s attorney argued that his right to refuse the search has to be “valid until it’s impossible to enforce” (Fisher2013). This was not an illegal search. The search would have been illegal if the Roxanne would have told the police no they could not search the home and then they continued to proceed in the search.
I feel that Fernandez should get any punishment that they give him using the evidence they found in his house. I would most certainly agree with the lower courts for this case. Everything was conducted legally.
Jared Cepollina
The decision made in the lower courts is correct in this case. The defendant Fernandez was charged with gang related-violence and assault. There was evidence that was used against him that was found in his apartment. He believed that it should not have been allowed to be used because he did not give consent for the police to enter his apartment. However, when the police went back to the apartment, the women he lived with, did give consent to enter the apartment. The lower courts decided that this was allowed because Fernandez was not there to give consent, so the person who was there was allowed to (The Editorial Board, 2013). This decision would agree with many of the decisions that have been made in the recent past about questionably illegal evidence retrieval, and now is not the time to stop that trend. The issue of why this has been brought up so many times in the past is because of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects the rights of the accused, but they were not infringed upon in this case. Consent was given to enter the apartment by someone who was in the apartment at the time, and there was enough probable cause to want to search the apartment. They searched the apartment for drugs using a certified dog, but the dog found illegal drugs that it was not supposed to. However, the Supreme Court allowed those drugs as evidence considering the fact that they were still illegal (Lemeiux, 2013).
The only reason Fernandez was out of his home in the first place was because he was arrested from the probable cause regarding his beaten girlfriend. When she came to the door to answer the police with him, it was obvious that she was beaten and that it was very recent. Fernandez was arrested for that reason (Clark, 2013). Because he was out of his home, the police decided to try again to search the apartment. When they got there, the girlfriend gave consent for the apartment to be searched. At that moment, consent was given. The police went to the apartment and did not break in; instead they asked to come in, and that request was granted. The implications this may have on the fourth amendment are slightly significant, but they are for the right reasons. In the future, it will be easier for the police to do their jobs in order to assure the safety of society. The rights of the accused are not being unfairly taken away by this case, but the procedure is being changed to make life easier on police officers. While that is not a big deal for the accused, it is a big deal for the victims, and that is why the precedent of this case is goin gto have good implications. The precedent to this case was Mapp v. Ohio. In that case, the Supreme Court sided with Mapp, saying that the evidence that was used on trial was illegally obtained, so it could not be used in a court of law. However, there is one big difference between that case and this one: the evidence was not gained illegally in the Fernandez case. Consent to search the apartment was given; the police did not just break in when the person living there said no. That one cardinal difference changes the whole case, and that is why the decision made in the lower courts is correct, and it should not be overturned.
Amanda Afflebach
Fernandez’s argument is invalid. Rojas, Fernandez’s girlfriend, had a right to say that the officials could look in their apartment without a warrant. At the time that Rojas gave permission, Fernandez was not present. When Fernandez stepped forward after hearing the police, he said that he did not want the officials to be in their apartment without a warrant. Police arrested Fernandez, and rightfully so, and Roxanne Rojas signed an affidavit saying that the police could search the house (Clark, 2013). Two of the higher end officials also agreed that it was legal for the police to search the apartment (Lemieux, 2013). When the officials searched the apartment, they found a shotgun, ammunition, and a knife that were allegedly used in the robbery (The Editorial Board, 2013). Not only was there the reason of the gang-related violence case for the officials to be there, but also when Fernandez’s girlfriend answered the door with her infant, the officials saw something that they had not bargained for.
When Rojas opened the door to the police, the police saw something appalling. Rojas had bruises and was bleeding on various parts of her body. The police didn’t need a warrant to see that much. Now, a whole new case had to be opened up on domestic violence (The Editorial Board, 2013). However, this doesn’t excuse Fernandez from his other wrong doings. This is similar to the Mapp v. Ohio case. The police had originally gone to her house to find the suspect of the bombing in the house down the street, but instead they found obscene books in her house. They did not have a warrant to be in her house, either. The police had full rights to go into the Fernandez/Rojas apartment without a warrant because Rojas, a resident of the apartment, allowed them to.
Megan Bigelow
There are many topics that are argued in the Supreme Court daily. Each day there are many different debates on who is right and who is wrong (“A Mixed”). One topic being argued is whether the police should be allowed to enter a home if one owner says no, and the other says yes. The police should not require a search warrant to enter someones house and go through their belongings. If one of the owners allows them into their home, then that should be good enough. If two people are sharing a home and both pay for the home, there is nothing wrong with the police going in. The two homeowners/renters are aware of the custody over it/ In the Fernandez v. California case, the police went to Fernandez’s house to search the proximity and arrest him (“The Pew”). When he said they could not enter his home, they arrested him and went back an hour later. The girlfriend permitted them access and the police searched the home.
The Fernandez v. California case also deals with whether the police can enter the home of an arrested convict (“The Opinion”). As long as the police know that the suspect is guilty, then they may search the house. If the suspect is indeed, just a suspect, they must provide a search warrant to enter the home. Depending on the crime, the police must have 50%, 95%, or 100% to “know” the suspect is guilty. Police must follow the fourth amendment, but if they are positive that the suspect is guilty, they do not need a search warrant for the arrested convict’s home. If they are wrong, they will most likely be sued and possible fired. This prevents the police from abusing their authority.
Kymberly Benton-O'Marrah
The courts original findings in the Fernandez case should be upheld by the Supreme Courts decision. When one lives in an apartment with somebody else, than they no longer has the luxury of a complete sense of privacy and security. If a police officer asks a roommate or any other type of tenant to search the home or apartment, they should be able to give the consent. In this case, Fernandez’s girlfriend had a right and a responsibility to protect herself and her son, (Clark, 2013) in order to enforce these rights he invited the police inside to search the premises.
In the end, it comes down to the idea that if the police have enough probable cause to make an arrest, than they have enough to justify searching the property. Fernandez should have recognized that he no longer had a complete sense of privacy and therefore should have recognized that his girlfriend had the right and authority to invite anybody into their home, including police officers. This consent gave the police permission to search the home (Editorial Board, 2013). It is likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower-court decisions based on the court make-up of several civil conservative judges (Lemieux, 2013).
Katie Hackos
In the Fernandez Vs. California case, there is controversy about whether or not the evidence found was legal or illegal. What happened was that the police where looking for a man involves in a gang related incident, Walter Fernandez. When the police came to his house, Fernandez denied a search but then as arrested for the assault in the gang incident. Fernandez's girlfriend agreed to the search when the police came by later. He was then charged guilty in his trial with the evidence that was found in the search. Fernandez claimed that the evidence could not be used because the search was he didn't give his consent.
The question is, are police allowed to enter a search when one roommate says yes and another says no? Yes, it is allowed. Especially in this case, because of the commotion going on in the house when the police arrived there was enough suspicion from the screaming to already enter the building. Fernandez's girlfriend was a resident of that building. She had all the right to let the police into the building. All the wrong doings that Fernandez did wasn't going to be hidden forever so she just saved the process time. This case reminds us of Mapp vs. Ohio because it is claimed that the police had taken away the fourth amendment rights from the people charged. In the Fernandez case, the police did not break into the apartment nor tried to take away rights. The police simply asked to come in and a rightful owner agreed to let them in. In the Map vs Ohio case the police barged in did not find what they where looking for but found another illegal factor in the house. They used the illegal evidence to charge Mapp. Clearly, this was not the case. Lately, more and more people are questioning whether or not their rights are being violated but with time and as technology changes there will be changes to the fourth amendment.
Kacey Werner
The police wanted into an apartment to search for the man (Walter Fernandez) and the evidence of a gang related incident. When the police got there to search, Fernandez’s girlfriend opened the door but he denied the search. The police arrested him for the gang assault and came back later (with a warrant) to search the apartment and the girlfriend let them inside. As stated in the Pew Article, during the search they found a sawed-off shotgun, gang-affiliated clothes, ammunition and a knife. The evidence they found proved he was guilty but they didn’t have a warrant to search for it. He argued that the evidence was seized illegally.__ The fourth amendment has and will continue to give a lot of leeway to criminal’s but sometimes, they’re going to get caught and they aren’t going to be able to do anything about it. If you do the crime, you’re going to do the time.
In the New York Times article, __The state court rejected his appeal, finding that the police’s warrantless entry was legal because he was no longer there to object. Once he was gone, the state claimed that his girlfriend’s consent rendered the search lawful.__They had gotten permission to go into his house from his girlfriend and he is guilty of the crime so he shouldn’t have a say in the case. He is just trying to get out of trouble but his complaint is irrelevant. In the Mapp v. Ohio case, there was actual reasoning the evidence shouldn’t have been used, there was no warrant, there wasn’t permission from anyone to come inside and the police forced themselves in. In the Prospect article, with the dogs searching for drugs in the car, but the drugs found weren’t the drugs the dogs were supposed to find. __For such searches to be reasonable requires that dogs actually have a reliable record of distinguishing between automobiles that contain drugs and those that do not—if the sniffing produces essentially random results, they cannot be used as probable cause for a search.__
Stephan Day
I uphold the lower courts findings. As a member of the Supreme Court, I feel as though it is in the best interest of the judicial system that we make a clear standing as to why the search was legal. According to the arresting officers, upon arrival to the defendant’s home they heard screaming and fighting from the front door. At this point the officers had enough reason to make an arrest just for a domestic dispute. After police knocked on the door it was clear as day that the defendant’s girlfriend, Miss Rojas had clearly been beaten as she appeared bruised and bloodied. Yes Mr. Fernandez did deny the police to search his home but the arrest had already been made. Therefore when the police returned after detaining Mr. Fernandez, they had every right to ask his girlfriend Miss Rojas for permission to search the apartment as it was clear they had been living together and she was a tenant of the home.
According to one Justice the search was illegal because there was enough probable cause
to retrieve a warrant(Maggie Clark, 2013). But I say there wasn’t probable cause considering the officers had only received a tip from an unknown source that may or may not be reliable. I would say the officers may have jumped the gun by going to the house based on a tip but had they not have done that they would have never heard of the domestic dispute unless it was reported by the victim or neighbors, which by then the victim could had fled the scene. I also uphold the officers going back to ask Miss Rojas to search the apartment after Mr. Fernandez had already denied the search because through their search they found more than enough evidence to suggest Mr. Fernandez’s gang affiliations. The defendant was in possession of an illegal firearm as well as owned gang related clothing. In terms of illegal searches I feel that the arresting officers did nothing illegal or illegally obtained evidence due to the fact that the defendant’s girlfriend gave permission to a property search. Her signature on the affidavit was enough for police to go through with the search and find key evidence against the defendant.
Daniel Gonzalez
When you look into this case for the first time, the question you might reach at the end is “Was this legal?” Honestly, from the details shown about what happened between law enforcement officials and Walter Hernandez, it can be seen that the court decision made was in fact the right one; sentencing Hernandez to fourteen years in jail for gang-related issues and upholding the original findings in the case. (The Editorial Board, 2013) This decision was correct for a number of good reasons. The first is that the LA police department did receive note that a suspected gang member named Walter Hernandez had assaulted another man, then returned back to his apartment. The police when arriving at the apartment heard screaming and fighting through the door. (Clark, 2013) This gave them all the reason to actually enter the property without consent, having prior suspicion anyways on the suspect.
The second reason to why it was best to sentence Hernandez to fourteen years in jail is because his girlfriend did give consent for the police to search the apartment. This happened after the suspect was arrested, later coming back to ask permission. (The Editorial Board, 2013) So the situation does present itself legal, as one of the people that lives with Hernandez did give consent to the police so they could search the residence thoroughly, with prior suspicions.
In the end, most people should believe in the decision made, as no one does want to see a criminal walk away freely just because that criminal(Hernandez) complained that without him there, the police had no right to search the apartment. Just look at the Supreme Court, they still ruled against the Fourth Amendment, even though the drug dogs in the case were not trained for the specific drugs found, nonetheless the person was guilty of possession of illegal drugs. (Lemieux, 2013)
The Fourth Amendment does allow you privacy, but also states that searches can be done without a warrant, with consent from someone who resides on the property. (Mapp v. Ohio) This man still assaulted someone, robbed things, and had ties with gangs. This is why the decision made on Walter Hernandez was legal, and the court was indeed correct.
Dilina Patel
The evidence presented in the lower courts decision is correct. Walter Fernandez was found guilty of gang-related violence and assault. Fernandez argued that the evidence that was presented in court should be deemed inadmissible because it was taken illegally from his apartment. The lower courts decision set a precedent on whether the tenant of an apartment can give consent to allow police in to search the home. The lower court stated that the search was legal due to the fact that Fernandez was not there to consent anymore (The Editorial Board, 2013). This case focuses on the Fourth Amendment and whether the search done by the police in this case violates the rights of the accuse.Though the case will be going to the Supreme Court, the decision will most likely be parallel with the lower courts. In the past year the Supreme Court has agreed with an “illegal” drug search. The police went into the search with a drug-search dog and the intent to find a certain drug. Instead the dog sniffed out a different drug. The Supreme court sided with the police, stating that the drugs found were still illegal and should still be considered evidence (Lemieux, 2013). The police in the Fernandez case went with the intent to charge Fernandez with assault but instead found a battered woman, changing the case entirely.
Though Fernandez was arrested, his girlfriend allowed the local police into the apartment to search for evidence to convict Fernandez with assault. Fernandez claimed the evidence does not count due to the fact that he himself did not give consent to the police. Fernandez was arrested after the police knocked on the door and Fernandez’s girlfriend opened the door, bloodied and holding a baby. In order to protect the lives of the woman and her child, Fernandez was taken away(Clark, 2013). The police, in need of evidence to convict Fernandez needed to get into the apartment. They were correct in asking the consent of the girlfriend. The girlfriend allowed the police into the home to look for evidence. The police did find enough to convict Fernandez. The police force did nothing wrong and did not violate the Fourth Amendment in that they did ask for consent before entering the home. In the precedent case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme sided with Mapp, saying that the evidence collected was inadmissible because the items were taken without consent. In the Fernandez case, the police did not break into his home and just take the items. The difference between the Mapp and Fernandez case is that the police forced their way into Mapp’s home. The police received consent for entering into Fernandez’s home and therefore were not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Pedro Tavarez
In the case about Walter Fernandez, I myself agree with the lower courts the search was legal. Why? because when the police knocked on the door, they saw a woman holding an infant answered. She had a fresh wound on her face and blood on her hand and shirt. When the police saw the suspect behind her(Walter Fernandez), they asked him to step outside. He said, “You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights.” The police arrested Fernandez, on charges of domestic violence, and he was taken to the police station.
An hour later, the police returned to the home and asked the woman, Mr. Fernandez’s girlfriend, if they could enter. She consented, and the subsequent search turned up a shotgun, ammunition and a knife allegedly used in the robbery. Also, If the police have probable cause to make an arrest, they will almost surely have the basis for a warrant as well. Warrants can be issued in a matter of minutes, and, in the meantime, the police can secure the home if they are concerned that evidence may be destroyed. Furthermore, what if the police didn’t arrest Fernandez that women could of possibly died. Lastly, in the supreme court they mentioned “special protection as the center of the private lives of our people.” The justices should reaffirm that principle and require police who wish to search a home to get a warrant, even if the only person standing in their way is in a holding cell.
Romello Barbour
The option of having at least one tenant giving consent seems like the good choice to go to. There should be no need for excessive time when the police feel the need to search an area to protect others lives. One tenant is already giving consent and if the other does not then there might be a reason for that, such as hiding something that could get them in trouble with the law. There is already a reason that the police would like to search the structure anyways so it isn’t like the police just want to go around and going through everyone’s things. Based upon all the decisions that were made the overall decision should remain the same.
If this court case were changed then all of the other cases related would have to be changed as well. A lot of cases would have to be altered and punishments would be different. There is no reason for the search that was done by the police to change the outcome of the case. A co-tenant of the home gave consent for the police to do a legal search on the home. What the police found was evidence that should have the man arrested. A sawed off shotgun and gang affiliated clothing with his spouse bruised and bloody should at least get Walter Fernendez questioned, and the fact that he denied the police access to his home made things seem even more suspicious. Walter Fernendez's argument of his home being illegally searched is invalid, all the evidence found is legal to be used in court to get him incarcerated.